Comments 

on 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Proposed Prevention of Significant Deterioration Permit 

for Victorville II Hybrid Power Project (SE-07-02) 

Prepared for 

Gloria D. Smith 

Adams, Broadwell, Joseph & Cardozo 

601 Gateway Boulevard, Suite 1000 

South San Francisco, CA 94080 

Prepared by 

Petra Pless, D.Env. 

San Rafael, CA 94903 

July 7, 2008
i 

Table of Contents 

I. The Proposed PSD Permit and Statement of Basis Frustrate Public 

Review ................................................................................................................... 5

II. The Agency’s Completeness Determination Was Issued 

Prematurely and Is Deficient.............................................................................. 7

III. The Agency’s PM2.5 PSD Analysis Is Flawed ................................................... 8

III.A The Use of PM10 as a Surrogate for PM2.5 Violates Federal Law and Relies on 

Guidance That Is In Conflict with Statutory Requirements and Is No Longer 

Technically Justified ............................................................................................................................. 9

III.B The Agency Must Implement the Final Rule for Implementation of the New 

Source Review Program for PM2.5 ............................................................................................... 10

III.C Modeled PM2.5 Emissions from the Project’s Stationary Sources Exceed PM10 

Significant Impact Levels .................................................................................................................. 11

III.D Fugitive Dust PM2.5 Emissions from the Project May Result in a Violation of the 

24-Hour National Ambient Air Quality Standard for PM2.5 .................................................. 13

IV. The Proposed PSD Permit’s BACT Determinations Are Incomplete 

and Deficient ...................................................................................................... 14

IV.A The Proposed PSD Permit Lacks a BACT Analysis and Permit Limits for 

Greenhouse Gas Emissions ............................................................................................................. 14

IV.B The Agency Failed to Follow Its Own Procedures in Establishing BACT Limits ............... 15

IV.C The CO BACT Determination for CTGs Is Flawed ................................................................. 16

IV.C.1 The CO BACT Determination Does Not Follow the Top-down 

Procedure Established as a Standard for BACT Determination ............................. 17

IV.C.2 Lower CO Limits Have Been Permitted Under All Firing Conditions .................. 18

IV.C.3 Lower CO Emissions Have Been Demonstrated in Practice ................................... 19

IV.D The PM and PM10 (as a Surrogate for PM2.5) BACT Determination for CTGs Is 

Flawed .................................................................................................................................................. 20

IV.D.1 The PM and PM2.5 BACT Determinations Do Not Follow the Topdown Procedure Established as Standard for BACT Analyses ................................ 20

IV.D.2 Lower PM10 Emissions Limits Have Been Permitted ................................................ 21

IV.D.3 Lower PM10 Emissions Have Been Demonstrated in Practice ............................... 22

IV.D.4 Demonstrated In Practice Is the Wrong Standard for Emission Control 

Technologies ........................................................................................................................ 23

IV.D.5 Proposed Test Methods to Determine Compliance Require Lowering 

the PM and PM10 (as a Surrogate for PM2.5) BACT Limits .................................... 24

IV.E BACT Determinations for Auxiliary Boiler, Auxiliary, Heater, Emergency Engine, 

and Firewater Pump Are Flawed ................................................................................................... 25
ii 

V. The Proposed PSD Permit Fails to Include a Permit Limit for 

Ammonia Slip ..................................................................................................... 26

VI. The Proposed PSD Permit Limits Are Not Enforceable .............................. 26

VI.A Testing for PM and PM10 Emission Limits for CTGs Is Not Adequate to Assure 

Continuous Compliance .................................................................................................................. 27

VI.B No Recordkeeping for Hours of Operation for Duct Burners .............................................. 28

VI.C Insufficient Monitoring for Cooling Tower Emissions .............................................................. 29

VI.D No Restrictions on Hours of Operation and No Compliance Testing for Heater, 

Boiler, Emergency Use Engine, or Fire Water Pump ............................................................... 29

Tables 

Table A-1: Permitted PM and PM10 Emissions Rates for Natural Gas-Fired Combined-Cycle 

Power Plants with F-Class Turbines 

Table A-2: Permitted CO Emissions Rates for Natural Gas-Fired Combined-Cycle Power Plants 

with F-Class Turbines 

Exhibits

Exhibit 1: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, New Source Review Workshop Manual, 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Nonattainment Area Permitting, Draft, 

October 1990; pp. B.56, C.28 and H.5 

Exhibit 2: California Energy Commission, Victorville 2 Hybrid Power Project, Application for 

Certification (07-AFC-1), San Bernardino County, Presiding Member’s Proposed 

Decision, CEC-800-2008-003-PMPD, May 2008, pp. 35, 38, 78, 110, 115, and 

119-120 

Exhibit 3: T. Piechota, J. van Ee, J. Batista, K. Stave, D. James, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, 

and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Eds.), Potential Environmental Impacts 

of Dust Suppressants: “Avoiding Another Times Beach,” An Expert Panel Summary, 

Las Vegas, Nevada, May 30-31, 2002, Table 5, pp. 16 and 50 

Exhibit 4: Candidate Stationary and Area Control Measures, Chicago PM2.5 Workshop, June 

21, 2007, Tim Smith, USEPA 

Exhibit 5: Inland Energy, Inc., Victorville 2 Hybrid Power Project, Responses to CURE Data 

Requests, Set 2, August 2007, pp. AQ-19 – AQ-20 

Exhibit 6: The Avogadro Group, Los Medanos Energy Center Report for Initial Emission 

Compliance Tests, January 22, 2002, without appendices 

Exhibit 7: The Avogadro Group, Revised Report for Startup Emission Compliance Tests and 

CEMS Part 60 and Part 75 RATA, Sutter Power Project, Yuba City, California, 

January 2002, without appendices 
iii 

Exhibit 8: California Energy Commission, Blythe Energy Project Phase II, Application for 

Certification (02-AFC-1), Commission Decision, CEC-800-2005-005-CMF, 

December 2005, Condition AQ-4.e, p. 35 

Exhibit 9: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, Caithness Blythe II, L.L.C. 

(Blythe II), Authority to Construct, Issued Pursuant to Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration (PSD) Requirements at 40 CFR §52.21, PSD Permit Number 

SE 02-01, April 25, 2007, Condition D, p. 6 

Exhibit 10: California Energy Commission, Energy Facility Status, Projects since 1997, Updated: 

6/20/2008 

Exhibit 11: California Energy Commission, Cosumnes Power Plant Project, Sacramento County, 

Application for Certification (01-AFC-19), Commission Decision, P800-03-013, 

September 2003, Condition AQ-17, pp. 27-28 

Exhibit 12: The Avogadro Group, LLC, Source Test Report, 2007 Emission Compliance Tests, 

SFA Cosumnes Power Plant, Herald, California, March 16, 2007, without appendices 

Exhibit 13: California Energy Commission, In the Matter of: Los Medanos Energy Center, Order 

No. 07-0523-4, Order Approving a Petition to Lower the Annual PM10 Emissions 

Limit for the Facility, Docket No. 98-AFC-1C

Exhibit 14: T.F. Hunt, Associate Enforcement Counsel, OECA, and John Seitz, Director, 

OAQPS, to EPA Regional Offices, Guidance on Limiting Potential to Emit in New 

Source Permitting, June 13, 1989 

Exhibit 15: Evaluation of Potential PM2.5 Reductions by Improving Performance of Control 

Devices: Conclusions and Recommendations, Prepared for: U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency by E.H. Pechan & Associates, Inc., EPA Contract No. 68-D-00-

265, September 30, 2005 

Exhibit 16: CIBO Industrial Emissions Control Technology II Conference, August 2 - 4, 2004 

Portland, Maine 

Exhibit 17: U.S. Department of Energy, Demonstration of a Full-Scale Retrofit of the Advanced 

Hybrid Particulate Collector Technology, February 2007 

Exhibit 18: G.C. England, Development of Fine Particulate Emission Factors and Speciation 

Profiles for Oil and Gas-fired Combustion Systems, Technical Memorandum: 

Conceptual Model of Sources of Variability in Combustion Turbine PM10 Emissions 

Data, March, 2004 

Exhibit 19: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, Caithness Blythe II, L.L.C. (Blythe 

II), Authority to Construct, Issued Pursuant to Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration (PSD) Requirements at 40 CFR §52.21, PSD Permit Number SE 02-

01, April 25, 2007 

Exhibit 20: California Energy Commission, Russell City Energy Center, Amendment No. 1 (01-

AFC-7C), Alameda County, Final Commission Decision, CEC-800-2007-003-CMF 

Exhibit 21: California Energy Commission, Pittsburg District Energy Facility [now Los Medanos, 

Application for Certification (98-AFC-1), Commission Decision, P800-99-013, 

August, 1999 

Exhibit 22: California Energy Commission, Moss Landing Power Plant Project, Application for 

Certification, Commission Decision, P 800-00-008, November 2000 
iv 

Exhibit 23: California Energy Commission, The Metcalf Energy Center, Application for 

Certification (99-AFC-3), Santa Clara County, Commission Decision, P800-01-023, 

September 2001 

Exhibit 24: California Energy Commission, Mountainview Power Project, Application for 

Certification (00-AFC-2), San Bernardino County, Commission Decision, P800-01-

008 

Exhibit 25: California Energy Commission, Inland Empire Energy Center, Application for 

Certification (01-AFC-17), Riverside County, Commission Decision, December 

2003 

Exhibit 26: California Energy Commission, Magnolia Power Project, Application for Certification 

(01-AFC-6), Los Angeles County, City of Burbank, Commission Decision, P800-03-

003, March 2003 

Exhibit 27: California Energy Commission, Malburg Generating Station Project, Application for 

Certification 01-AFC-25, City of Vernon, Los Angeles County, Commission 

Decision, May 2003, P800-03-007 

Exhibit 28: Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council, BP Cherry Point Cogeneration Project, BP 

West Coast Products, LLC, Whatcom County, Washington, Final Approval of 

Construction and Prevention of Significant Deterioration, No. EFSEC/2002-01, 

October 10, 2006 
COMMENTS

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region IX (“EPA” or “the Agency”) 

proposes to issue a Prevention of Significant Deterioration (“PSD”) permit under the 

Clean Air Act’s New Source Review (“NSR”) requirements for the Victorville II Hybrid 

Power Project (“Victorville II” or “the Project”) applied for by the City of Victorville 

(“Applicant”).1 

As discussed below, the proposed PSD Permit is inadequate because (I) the 

proposed PSD Permit and the supporting Statement of Basis frustrate public review; 

(II) the application completeness determination was prematurely issued and is 

deficient; (III) the Agency failed to determine that the Project may result in violations of 

the 24-hour PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standard; (IV) the best available 

control technology (“BACT”) determinations are incomplete and flawed including the 

lack of a BACT determination for greenhouse gases and the failure to require BACT for 

particulate matter and carbon monoxide (“CO”) emissions from the combustion turbine 

generators (“CTGs”); (V) it fails to set a limit for the ammonia slip from the selective 

catalytic reduction (“SCR”) system; and (VI) the proposed permit limits are not 

federally enforceable. 

I. The Proposed PSD Permit and Statement of Basis Frustrate 

Public Review 

For all practical purposes, the proposed PSD Permit and the supporting 

Statement of Basis are presented in a way that makes it impossible for an independent 

reviewer to trace the Agency’s decision process. 

The Statement of Basis does not present the entire information necessary to 

determine whether the Agency’s determinations are correct. Instead, the reviewer has to 

consult a multitude of documents beyond the Applicant’s application for a PSD Permit 

(“PSD Application”) and its supplements. For example, instead of providing a complete 

BACT analysis for each pollutant and source subject to PSD review to support the 

BACT-based permit limits in the body of the document, the Statement of Basis only 

provides brief summaries that are based on a number of additional documents. The 

PM10 (as a surrogate for PM2.5) BACT analysis for the Project’s CTGs is a prime 

example. The Statement of Basis provides the following terse summary: 

 

1 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, Victorville II Hybrid Power Project (SE07-02), 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration Permit, Proposed Permit Conditions, June 2008 (“proposed PSD 

Permit”); Docket No. EPA-R09-OAR-2008-0406-0017; and Statement of Basis and Ambient Air Quality 

Impact Report for a Clean Air Act Prevention of Significant Deterioration Permit, June 2008 (“Statement 

of Basis”); Docket No. EPA-R09-OAR-2008-0406-0016. 
Pless Comments on Victorville II proposed PSD Permit 

July 7, 2008 

6 

Particulate emissions from the gas turbine trains result from fuel sulfur, inert 

trace contaminants, and incomplete combustion of hydrocarbons. We do not 

believe that any add-on particulate emission controls have been demonstrated in 

practice for this type of source. Thus, the proposed permit limits the sulfur 

content of the fuel to no more than 0.2 grains per 100 dry standard cubic feet as 

BACT, which would limit sulfate particulate emissions. 

We are proposing to limit particulate emissions (PM and PM10) to 12 lb/hr from 

each turbine without duct burner firing, and 18 lb/hr with duct burner firing. As 

noted earlier, using PM10 as a surrogate for PM2.5 does not affect the emission 

controls selected as BACT.2

The Agency’s conclusion regarding PM and PM2.5 BACT appear to be based on 

the BACT analyses contained in two supplemental submissions to the PSD Application 

for PM2.5 and PM, but the Statement of Basis does not mention these documents. These 

supplements to the PSD Application can be found in the docket on the Agency’s 

website.3,4 Review of these document shows that they, in turn, do not contain all 

information relied upon to come to conclusions regarding BACT either. The necessary 

information, specifically, the PM and PM10 permit limits from the South Coast Air 

Quality Management District’s BACT Guidelines and the EPA’s RACT/BACT/LAER 

Clearinghouse (“RBLC”) for other, similar facilities relied upon to determine the BACT 

permit limits for Victorville II are not provided in the supplements to the PSD 

Application or for that matter anywhere in documents listed on the Agency’s website. 

The respective BACT determinations contain no reference where to find the information 

they relied upon to reach their conclusions regarding the proposed BACT permit limits. 

The docket shows that a number of California Energy Commission documents have 

been submitted into the administrative record such as the Application for Certification 

(“AFC”)5, the Preliminary6 and Final Staff Assessments7, and some mysterious 

 

2 Statement of Basis, pp. 14-15. 

3 Sara Head, ENSR, Letter to Ed Pike, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, San Francisco, CA, Subject: 

Supplement to Application for Prevention of Significant Deterioration Permit for Victorville 2 Hybrid 

Power Project (VV2), June 25, 2007; Docket No. EPA-R09-OAR-2008-0406-0009. 

4 Thomas Barnett, Inland Energy, Inc., Letter to Anita Lee, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, San 

Francisco, CA, Subject: Supplement to Application for Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) 

Permit for Victorville 2 Hybrid Power Project, January 28, 2008; Docket No. EPA-R09-OAR-2008-0406-

0010. 

5 Inland Energy, Inc., Application for Certification, Victorville Hybrid Power Project, February 2007. 

6 California Energy Commission, Victorville 2 Hybrid Power Project, Application For Certification 

(07-AFC-1), San Bernardino County, Preliminary Staff Assessment, CEC-700-2007-021-PSA, 

November 2007. 
Pless Comments on Victorville II proposed PSD Permit 

July 7, 2008 

7 

“Distribution of Supplemental Information,” which are not available directly on the 

EPA’s website but rather are available on the CEC’s website.8 This sends the reviewer 

on a wild goose chase searching through these several hundred-page documents and 

their respective, equally long appendices, updates, and revisions to find the most up-todate list of permit limits for these pollutants. 

This approach does not satisfy the Agency’s obligation to conduct an 

independent review of the Applicant’s BACT determinations and frustrates public 

review and analysis. The basis for the Agency’s decisions must be clear and welldocumented in a stand-alone document referencing a few clearly identified documents 

without requiring the reviewer to wade through stacks of documents on the Agency’s 

and the California Energy Commission’s websites. 

II. The Agency’s Completeness Determination Was Issued 

Prematurely and Is Deficient 

On June 13, 2007, the Agency issued an application completeness determination 

(“Completeness Determination”) to the Applicant stating that the Agency received the 

initial PSD Application on May 8, 2007 and an update on June 22, 2007, which together 

would cover the pollutants NOx, CO, and PM2.5, and that the Agency deems the PSD 

Application administratively complete.9 There are a number of problems with this 

Completeness Determination. 

First, the Completeness Determination was issued prematurely because it did not 

address PM, one of the criteria pollutants subject to PSD review.10 On December 20, 

2007, six months after the Completeness Determination was issued, the Agency 

requested information regarding PM and received a PM analysis from the Applicant on 

January 28, 2008.11 An analysis of PM is essential for the Agency’s review of the Project 

 7 California Energy Commission, Victorville 2 Hybrid Power Project, Application For Certification 

(07-AFC-1), San Bernardino County, Final Staff Assessment, CEC-700-2007-021-FSA, March 2008. 

8 See U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, Administrative Record Index, Victorville 2 

Hybrid Power Project, PSD Permit (SE-07-02), Docket No. EPA-R09-OAR-2008-0406, see footnote 

referencing the availability of CEC documents at: 

http://www.energy.ca.gov/sitingcases/victorville2/documents/index.html. 

9 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, Jon Roberts, City of Victorville, Subject: Application 

Completeness Determination for Victorville II Prevention of Significant Deterioration Permit Application, 

June 13, 2007; Docket No. EPA-R09-OAR-2008-0406-0008S. 

10 Statement of Basis, Table 3, p. 9. 

11 Thomas Barnett, Inland Energy, Inc., Letter to Anita Lee, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, San 

Francisco, CA, Subject: Supplement to Application for Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) 

Permit for Victorville 2 Hybrid Power Project, January 28, 2008; Docket No. EPA-R09-OAR-2008-0406-

0010. 
Pless Comments on Victorville II proposed PSD Permit 

July 7, 2008 

8 

as PM is a regulated PSD pollutant. Thus, this information must be available to the 

Agency before issuing a Completeness Determination. The request for this information 

six months after issuing the Completeness Determination demonstrates that the 

Completeness Determination was issued prematurely because it did not address PM. 

Second, greenhouse gases are also pollutants subject to regulation under the 

Clean Air Act, as discussed in more detail in Comment IV.A, and the Agency should 

have addressed these pollutants in its review and in the Completeness Determination 

but did not. Therefore, the Completeness Determination is deficient because it failed to 

address pollutants subject to regulation under the Act. 

Third, the Agency failed to set PM2.5 BACT limits instead using PM10 BACT as a 

surrogate. As discussed in Comment III.A, this approach violates federal law. 

In sum, the Agency issued the Completeness Determination to the Applicant 

without covering all aspects necessary to actually determine administrative 

completeness of the PSD Application. 

III. The Agency’s PM2.5 PSD Analysis Is Flawed 

The Statement of Basis identifies PM2.5 as an attainment pollutant subject to PSD 

review. 12 For purposes of PSD review of PM2.5, the Agency determined that the use of 

PM10 as a surrogate for PM2.5 is appropriate.13 Accordingly, the analysis of Project 

impacts on ambient air quality relies on modeling of estimated PM10 emissions.14 For a 

24-hour averaging period, maximum project impacts from all Project sources were 

estimated at 6.1 μg/m3 of PM2.5 (on a PM10 as a surrogate basis). On an annual basis, 

maximum Project impacts were modeled at 0.3 μg/m3 of PM2.5 (on a PM10 as a 

surrogate basis.15,16 Based on these modeled maximum impacts, the Agency concludes 

that operation of Victorville II would not cause a violation of the PM2.5 National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards (“NAAQS”) and would therefore not be significant.17

The Agency’s analyses violate federal law and are flawed. Therefore, the Agency’s 

conclusions regarding the significance of Project impacts are erroneous as discussed in 

the following. 

 

12 Statement of Basis, p. 9. 

13 Ibid. 

14 Ibid and footnote 15, p. 20. 

15 Statement of Basis, Table 7, p. 20. 

16 Sara Head, ENSR, Letter to Ed Pike, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, San Francisco, CA, Subject: 

Supplement to Application for Prevention of Significant Deterioration Permit for Victorville 2 Hybrid 

Power Project (VV2), June 25, 2007; Docket No. EPA-R09-OAR-2008-0406-0009; Table 2, p. 5. 

17 Statement of Basis, p. 19. 
Pless Comments on Victorville II proposed PSD Permit 

July 7, 2008 

9 

III.A The Use of PM10 as a Surrogate for PM2.5 Violates Federal Law and Relies 

on Guidance That Is In Conflict with Statutory Requirements and Is No 

Longer Technically Justified 

Contrary to the Agency’s assertions, PM10 cannot be used as a surrogate for 

PM2.5 for purposes of PSD review. This surrogate approach violates federal law and 

relies on guidance that is in conflict with statutory requirements, and is no longer 

technically justified. 

Using PM10 as if it were PM2.5 violates federal and state law. The EPA since 

1997 has distinguished PM2.5 from PM10, most importantly by setting different 

NAAQS for each pollutant based on their different health impacts.32 The Clean Air Act 

contains specific requirements regarding areas whose air quality violates the National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards, or NAAQS.31 Therefore, the Agency must determine 

directly whether the project will result in a significant emissions increase and significant 

net emissions increase of PM2.5 to ensure protection of the public health and 

compliance with the NAAQS. 

Further, the Agency based its decision to use PM10 as a surrogate for PM2.5 

emissions on its “October 23, 1997 transition memo guidelines, which authorize limits 

for PM10 as a surrogate for limits on PM2. 5 during the transition period lasting until 

final PSD PM2.5 regulations are issued...”18 Reliance on this memo is improper and 

invalidates the Agency’s analysis of PM2.5. 

First, the Agency cannot rely on guidance that does not have the force of law 

when that guidance, as here, is in conflict with statutory and regulatory requirements. 

Further, a BACT limit is required “for each regulated NSR pollutant for which the 

source has the potential to emit in significant amounts.”19 A “regulated NSR pollutant” 

includes any “pollutant for which a national ambient air quality standard has been 

promulgated...” and any other “pollutant that otherwise is subject to regulation under 

the [Clean Air] Act...”20 Therefore, the Agency should have analyzed PM2.5 as a 

separate pollutant and issued a separate PM2.5 BACT limit. 

Second, the Agency’s recommended use of PM10 as a surrogate for PM2.5 

expired by its own terms when the EPA published the final PM2.5 implementation rule 

in September 2007.21 The 1997 memo cited above provided interim guidance for 

 

18 Statement of Basis, footnote 8, p. 12. 

19 40 CFR 52.21(j)(2). 

20 40 CFR 52.21(b)(50(i) – (iv). 

21 See Final Rule for Implementation of the New Source Review (NSR) Program for Particulate Matter 

Less Than 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5). 
Pless Comments on Victorville II proposed PSD Permit 

July 7, 2008 

10 

implementing the new PM2.5 NAAQS.22 This now nearly ten-year-old memo stated that 

sources could use the PM10 surrogacy approach to meet NSR requirements until certain 

difficulties were resolved, most notably with respect to monitoring, emissions 

estimation, and air quality modeling. A more recent EPA memo reaffirmed the 

surrogacy approach specifically for nonattainment NSR but noted that U.S. EPA 

recommended using PM10 as a surrogate for PM2.5 “until [U.S. EPA] promulgate[s] the 

PM2.5 implementation rule.”23 As mentioned above, the final PM2.5 implementation 

rule has been published in September 2007. 

Third, technical difficulties in directly implementing the PM2.5 NAAQS that 

grounded the 1997 interim guidance back have been resolved. The EPA itself noted in 

the preamble to the November 2005 Proposed PM2.5 Implementation Rule that these 

technical concerns have been resolved: “As discussed in this preamble, those difficulties 

been resolved in most respects, and where they have not been, the proposal contains appropriate 

provisions to account for it.”24 The EPA also has included the PM2.5 algorithms in the 

AERMOD air quality computer modeling program, the recommended model for short 

distance air quality assessment, thus formally resolving prior concerns about PM2.5 

modeling capabilities.25 

III.B The Agency Must Implement the Final Rule for Implementation of the New 

Source Review Program for PM2.5 

On May 8, 2008, EPA finalized its regulations to implement the NSR program for 

fine particulate matter, effective July 15, 2008.26 The new rule, entitled “Final Rule for 

Implementation of the New Source Review (NSR) Program for Particulate Matter Less 

Than 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5),” requires all sources to determine Project impacts on a 

PM2.5 as PM2.5 basis. 

As discussed in Comment II, the Agency’s Completeness Determination was 

issued prematurely and erroneously and the Application remains incomplete. 

 

22 John S. Seitz, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Memorandum, Interim Implementation of New 

Source Review Requirements for PM2.5, October 23, 1997. 

23 Stephen D. Page, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Memorandum, Implementation of New 

Source Review Requirements in PM-2.5 Nonattainment Areas, April 5, 2005. 

24 Proposed Rule To Implement the Fine Particle National Ambient Air Quality Standards, 70 Fed. Reg. 

65984, 66043, November 1, 2005; emphasis added. 

25 See Revision to the Guideline on Air Quality Models: Adoption of a Preferred General Purpose (Flat 

and Complex Terrain) Dispersion Model and Other Revisions; Final Rule, 70 Fed. Reg. 68218, 68253, 

November 9, 2005, adopting AERMOD as the “preferred model.” 

26 Final Rule for Implementation of the New Source Review (NSR) Program for Particulate Matter Less 

Than 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5). 
Pless Comments on Victorville II proposed PSD Permit 

July 7, 2008 

11 

Therefore, the Agency must rescind the proposed PSD Permit, request a BACT analysis 

greenhouse gases from the Applicant, and issue a new Completeness Determination 

once these BACT analyses have been submitted. Because this new Completeness 

Determination will occur after July 15, 2008, the Agency must also include a PM2.5 

BACT analysis based on the Final Implementation Rule’s requirements. 

III.C Modeled PM2.5 Emissions from the Project’s Stationary Sources Exceed 

PM10 Significant Impact Levels 

Notwithstanding the discussions in Comments III.A and III.B, the Agency should 

have found significant impacts for PM2.5 emissions from the Project when using the 

PM10 surrogacy approach, as discussed in the following. 

The first step in determining whether a source would cause significant 

deterioration of air quality is to compare maximum modeled ambient air concentrations 

of attainment pollutants to established significant impact levels (“SILs”), also called 

significance levels. A SIL for a given criteria pollutant and averaging period is defined 

as the ambient concentration produced by a source’s emissions below which the source 

is assumed to have a less-than-significant impact on air quality. The SILs for emissions 

of SO2, PM10, NOx, CO, and O3 in Class II areas can be found in the EPA’s NSR 

Manual27, Table C-4.28 The Class II SIL for PM10 established for a 24-hour period is 

5.0 μg/m3. The Class II PM10 SIL on an annual basis is 1.0μg/m3.29 The Class I SIL for 

PM10 established for a 24-hour period for areas located within 100 kilometers of a 

Class I area is 1.0 μg/m3.

30 (The Project is located within 100 kilometers of five Class I 

areas, and just outside of 100 kilometers from Joshua Tree National Park.31) 

The EPA opted to use the PM10 surrogacy approach for analyzing PM2.5 

impacts. Under the PM10 surrogacy approach, PM10 is used as a surrogate for PM2.5. 

Practically, this means that PM10 emissions are calculated and modeled to determine 

ambient PM10 concentrations and these are compared to PM10 thresholds, in this case, 

the PM10 SILs. The Agency does not mention the 24-hour and annual PM10 SILs and 

instead notes that SILs for PM2.5 have not yet been established.32 The Agency failed to 

 

27 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, New Source Review Workshop Manual, Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration and Nonattainment Area Permitting, Draft, October 1990; cited pages attached 

as Exhibit 1. 

28 NSR Manual, Table C-4, p. C.28, see Exhibit 1. 

29 Ibid. 

30 Ibid. 

31 Statement of Basis, p. 20. 

32 Statement of Basis, p. 19. 
Pless Comments on Victorville II proposed PSD Permit 

July 7, 2008 

12 

identify that the modeled 24-hour PM10 ambient air quality concentrations of 6.1 μg/m3

by far exceed the Class II PM10 SIL of 5.0 μg/m3 established for a 24-hour period. 

Because the Agency followed the surrogacy approach for PM2.5, the Agency 

must finish what it started. The Agency should have compared modeled 24-hour PM10 

ambient concentrations with the 24-hour PM10 SIL to determine the significance of the 

Project. Using the 24-hour PM10 SIL to determine significance of maximum project 

impacts is analogous to the use of the PM10 significant emissions rate to determine 

whether PSD applies for PM2.5. The Agency used the PSD significant emissions rate to 

determine PSD applicability for the Project33 but failed to explain why the PM10 SILs 

are not equally applicable for determining significance. 

Under the PM10 surrogacy approach, the Agency should have required the 

Applicant to conduct a full-impact analysis to determine if the Project plus existing 

sources would cause a significant ambient impact anywhere, including whether it 

would cause or contribute to a violation of any NAAQS or PSD increment, among 

others. As the area where the Project is located is nonattainment for PM10, any increase 

in PM10 will contribute to a NAAQS violation and thus any increase in PM10 emissions 

is per se a significant impact. Thus, the Application is incomplete. The EPA should 

rescind the Application Completeness Determination and require that the Applicant 

complete a full-impact analysis. 

Further, the EPA has recently proposed three different options for Class I and 

Class II SILs for PM2.5.34 The proposed Class II SIL options for a 24-hour period are 

5.0, 4.0, and 1.2 μg/m3. The modeled Project emissions exceed all three of the proposed 

options for the 24-hour Class II SIL. Therefore, Project emissions are significant no 

matter which option of the proposed SILs will be promulgated. The corresponding 

annual SIL options are 1.0, 0.08, and 0.3 μg/m3. If the latter option were promulgated, 

annual Project impacts, estimated at 0.3 μg/m3 would also be significant. The proposed 

Class I SIL options for a 24-hour period are 0.08, 0.24, and 0.07 μg/m3. Several 

maximum modeled concentrations would exceed the proposed 0.07 and the 0.08 μg/m3 

SIL in the Cucamonga, San Gorgonio, and San Gabriel Wilderness Areas.35 Thus, when 

using the new PM2.5 SILs, Project impacts are also significant. 

 

33 Statement of Basis, Table 3, p. 9. 

34 Environmental Protection Agency, 40 CFR Parts 51 and 52, [EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0605; FRL-8470-1], RIN 

2060-AO24, Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) for Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5, 

Micrometers (PM2.5) – Increments, Significant Impact Levels (SILs) and Significant Monitoring 

Concentration (SMC). 

35 Sara Head, ENSR, Letter to Ed Pike, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, San Francisco, CA, Subject: 

Supplement to Application for Prevention of Significant Deterioration Permit for Victorville 2 Hybrid 

Power Project (VV2), June 25, 2007; Docket No. EPA-R09-OAR-2008-0406-0009, Table 3. 
Pless Comments on Victorville II proposed PSD Permit 

July 7, 2008 

13 

Finally, as discussed in the following comment, the Applicant underestimated 

PM10 (as a surrogate for PM2.5) emissions because it failed to include in its emissions 

calculations fugitive dust emissions from wind erosion of the solar field and unpaved 

roads and from entrained road dust from operations and maintenance vehicles 

traveling on unpaved roads on site. Thus, the PM2.5 emissions will likely exceed the 

24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. 

III.D Fugitive Dust PM2.5 Emissions from the Project May Result in a Violation of 

the 24-Hour National Ambient Air Quality Standard for PM2.5 

In addition to PM2.5 emissions from the Project’s fossil-fuel powered stationary 

equipment and the cooling tower, the Project would also result in substantial fugitive 

dust particulate matter emissions due to wind erosion of the 250-acre graded solar field 

during construction and operation of the Project and the two 20-acre and 30-acre graded 

construction laydown areas. The Applicant intends to use a chemical dust suppressant 

on the graded areas during construction but did not provide information on dust 

control of the graded solar field during its operational phase.36 Even if the use of dust 

suppressants were intended, they have been found to have little efficacy at suppressing 

small respirable dust particles. Further, while chemical dust suppressants have a 

relatively high initial efficiency, estimated to vary between 40 and 98 percent, the 

control efficiency has been found to decay to zero within a few months.37 

In addition fugitive dust emissions would result from entrained road dust 

emissions from operations and maintenance vehicles driving on the unpaved solar field, 

and entrained road dust from delivery and waste removal vehicles traveling on paved 

and unpaved roads off-site. (The Applicant estimated that the Project would have 

13 vehicles on site for operations and maintenance, which are estimated to drive a total 

of 79 miles per month on unpaved roads. 

Major sources that belong to one of the 27 source categories under 40 CFR 52.21 

must include fugitive emissions, i.e. emissions that cannot reasonably pass through a 

stack, chimney, vent, or other functionally equivalent opening, in their potential to emit 

(“PTE”). The source category “Fossil fuel-fired steam electric plants of more than 

250 million British thermal units per hour heat input” applies to the Project.38 Therefore, 

 

36 California Energy Commission, Victorville 2 Hybrid Power Project, Application for Certification 

(07-AFC-1), San Bernardino County, Presiding Member’s Proposed Decision, CEC-800-2008-003-PMPD, 

May 2008, p. 115; cited pages attached as Exhibit 2. 

37 T. Piechota, J. van Ee, J. Batista, K. Stave, D. James, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, and 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Eds.), Potential Environmental Impacts of Dust Suppressants: 

“Avoiding Another Times Beach,” An Expert Panel Summary, Las Vegas, Nevada, May 30-31, 2002, 

Table 5, pp. 16 and 50; cited pages attached as Exhibit 3. 

38 Statement of Basis, p. 8. 
Pless Comments on Victorville II proposed PSD Permit 

July 7, 2008 

14 

calculations of Project emissions must include fugitive emissions.39 The Applicant’s 

modeled Project PM2.5 emissions only accounted for the Project’s stationary emissions 

including the CTGs and duct burners, the auxiliary heater, the auxiliary boiler, the 

emergency diesel engine, and the cooling tower but failed to account for fugitive dust 

particulate matter emissions.40

As mentioned before, modeling of the Project’s stationary source PM10 (as a 

surrogate for PM2.5) emissions resulted in a maximum project impact of 6.1 μg/m3.41

Added to the background ambient concentration of 26 μg/m3, this results in a total 

impact of 32.1 μg/m3, less than 3 μg/m3 lower than 24-hour NAAQS of 35 μg/m3. If the 

PM2.5 fraction of fugitive dust emissions were included in the modeling, the NAAQS 

would likely be exceeded. Therefore, the Completeness Determination must be 

rescinded, the Applicant directed to estimate fugitive emissions and revise the 

dispersion modeling to include them. 

IV. The Proposed PSD Permit’s BACT Determinations Are 

Incomplete and Deficient 

The Clean Air Act and its implementing regulations require the proposed PSD 

Permit to include emissions limits consistent with “best available control technology” 

for each pollutant subject to regulation under the Act.42 As discussed in Comment IV.A, 

the Statement of Basis lacks a BACT analysis and the proposed PSD Permit lacks permit 

limits for emissions of greenhouse gases. As discussed in Comments IV.C.1 and IV.D.1, 

the Agency failed to follow the top-down BACT procedure to determine CO and PM10 

(as a surrogate for PM2.5) BACT limits and the proposed permit limits fail to set BACT 

limits based on the maximum degree of reduction that is achievable (see Comments 

IV.C.2, IV.C.3, and IV.D.2). 

IV.A The Proposed PSD Permit Lacks a BACT Analysis and Permit Limits for 

Greenhouse Gas Emissions 

The Project would emit greenhouse gases, primarily carbon dioxide (“CO2”) and 

nitrous oxide (“N2O”) from combustion processes, and methane (“CH4”) from 

unburned natural gas due to leakage from the natural gas pipelines. Other greenhouse 

gas emissions associated with the Project include sulfur hexafluoride (“SF6”), which is 

used as a gaseous insulator in the Project’s high-voltage circuit breakers, and 

hydrofluorocarbons (“HFCs”) and perfluorocarbons (“PFCs”) which are used in its 

 

39 40 CFR 52.21(b)(iii)(z). 

40 See, for example, AFC, p. 6.3-66. 

41 Statement of Basis, Table 7, p. 20. 

42 See 42 U.S.C. § 7475(a)(4). 
Pless Comments on Victorville II proposed PSD Permit 

July 7, 2008 

15 

refrigeration/chiller equipment.43 The Applicant estimated 2,020,664 metric tons of 

annual CO2-equivalent emissions of these pollutants from the Project’s stationary 

sources and from circuit breaker leaks.44 As a recent Supreme Court decision 

determined, greenhouse gases are pollutants subject to regulation under the Clean Air 

Act. Therefore, PSD permits must include a BACT analysis and a permit limit for 

greenhouse gas emissions, as affirmed in a recent court decision.45,46 The proposed PSD 

Permit for the Project does not address emissions of these pollutants. 

Based on the foregoing, EPA must perform a BACT analysis and set BACT-based 

emission limits for CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions from the Project. The BACT 

analysis must include a discussion of available technologies that would reduce 

greenhouse gas emissions. For example, on a per-unit energy basis, the use of duct 

burners is far less efficient than using a larger turbine without duct burners or a small 

micro- or aeroderivative turbine for peaking power. These options would produce far 

less greenhouse gas emissions than the proposed duct-fired system. The proposed 

“major emitting facility” is still the same kind of statutorily defined “facility” under the 

Clean Air Act whether it uses duct burners or not. Therefore, the Project should be 

required not to use duct burners unless there is a more effective alternative for reducing 

greenhouse gas emissions. The BACT analysis should therefore analyze Project 

efficiency on a unit-energy basis and potential options to increase efficiency such as 

abandoning the use of duct burners, use of thermally more efficient aeroderivative 

turbines instead of duct burners, requiring a higher percentage of solar power 

generation, use of CO2 capture and storage technologies, use of oxy-firing, and other 

innovative technologies. 

IV.B The Agency Failed to Follow Its Own Procedures in Establishing BACT 

Limits 

The Statement of Basis provides the definition of BACT under the Clean Air Act 

and explains on 21⁄2 pages the five steps involved in a top-down BACT analysis. The 

 

43 See Exhibit 2, pp. 78, 110 and 119-120. 

44 Inland Energy, Inc., Victorville 2 Hybrid Power Project, Responses to CURE Data Requests, Set 2, 

August 2007, pp. AQ-19 – AQ-20; cited pages attached a 

Exhibit 5. 

45 See, 40 CFR 52.21(j)(2): BACT analysis is required for all “regulated NSR pollutants”; and 

40 CFR 52.21(b)(50): a regulated NSR pollutant is defined as “any pollutant that is otherwise subject to 

regulation under the Act.” 

46 BACT requirements encompass all pollutants subject to regulation under the CAA whether or not they 

are independently subject to NAAQS or other limits. See, e.g., Friends of the Chattahoochee v. Georgia Dept. of 

Natural Resources, Docket No. 2008CV146398, p. 7 (June 30, 2008). 
Pless Comments on Victorville II proposed PSD Permit 

July 7, 2008 

16 

Agency emphasizes that the five-step top-down procedure has been consistently 

followed by the Environmental Appeals Board in adjudicating PSD permit appeals .47 

Despite this detailed explanation, the Statement of Basis does not follow the fivestep top-down BACT analysis it describes but merely provides short summaries and 

conclusions for each of the Project’s emissions units and pollutants without in-depth 

discussions or support for its conclusions and without following the five steps of a topdown BACT analysis.48 As discussed in Comment I, the Statement of Basis, without 

referencing the respective documents, appears to rely on the BACT analyses contained 

in the Applicant’s PSD Application and several subsequently submitted documents as 

well as numerous documents contained on the California Energy Commission’s website 

including the Preliminary Staff Assessment, the Final Staff Assessment, and 

unidentified “Supplemental Information.” Review of EPA’s Project docket shows that 

the Applicant’s own BACT determinations did not follow the established five-step topdown BACT procedure either, including the CO BACT determination for the CTGs, 

discussed in Comment IV.C, the PM and PM2.5 BACT determination for the CTGs, 

discussed in Comment IV.D, and the BACT determinations for the auxiliary boiler, the 

auxiliary heater, emergency diesel engine, and the firewater pump, in Comment IV.D.4. 

IV.C The CO BACT Determination for CTGs Is Flawed 

The Statement of Basis contains the following paragraph as a CO BACT analysis 

for the CTGs: 

Carbon monoxide (CO) occurs due to incomplete combustion of natural gas in 

the gas turbine, and in the duct burners when they are operated. The applicant 

has proposed to install an oxidation catalyst to control CO. The application states 

that the facility will achieve 2.0 ppmvd CO over a 1-hour averaging period when 

it does not use duct burning, excluding startups and shutdowns. BACT for 

periods of startup and shutdown are discussed in Section 7.1.4. We believe 

2.0 ppmvd CO is the lowest emission rate that has been included in a permit for a 

facility of this type. The application also requests a slightly higher 3.0 ppmvd 

CO emission rate when duct burning is used, due to higher CO concentrations 

from the duct burners. While the facilities we reviewed generally have higher 

emission rates, there are some facilities with a 2.0 ppmvd CO limit that applies at 

all times. We believe that the combination of emission rates proposed by the 

applicant falls within the stricter end of the range of emission rates acceptable as 

BACT for CO, based on our review of data in the RBLC. Replacing duct burning 

 

47 Statement of Basis, pp. 10-11. 

48 Statement of Basis, pp. 14-17. 
Pless Comments on Victorville II proposed PSD Permit 

July 7, 2008 

17 

with solar energy, when available, will reduce the amount of time that the facility 

would use duct burning with the higher CO emission rates.49 

IV.C.1 The CO BACT Determination Does Not Follow the Top-down Procedure 

Established as a Standard for BACT Determination 

Neither the Agency’s one paragraph CO BACT determination nor the CO BACT 

determination contained in the PSD Application for the Project’s CTGs includes any of 

the five steps typically followed in a top-down BACT analysis, i.e. 1) identification of 

available control options; 2) elimination of technically infeasible options; 3) ranking of 

remaining control technologies; 4) evaluation of the most effective control alternative; 

and 5) selecting BACT.50 In fact, neither the Statement of Basis nor the PSD Application 

even mention which technologies are available to reduce CO emissions from the CTGs. 

Available control technologies that should have been analyzed include good 

combustion practices, alternatives to duct burning, catalytic oxidation, thermal 

oxidation, and SCONOX. (Presumably, duct burning and the use of solar power would 

occur concurrently during periods of high demand. Therefore, solar energy would not 

reduce the amount of time that the facility would use duct burning in the summer, 

contrary to the Agency’s suggestion. Further additional solar could be added.) Instead, 

the CO BACT determination contained in the PSD Application contains a “Top-down 

Ranking of Achievable Control Levels,” which simply excerpts CO permit limits for a 

number of facilities from the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s 

BACT Guidelines and the EPA’s RACT/BACT/LAER Clearinghouse.51 The provided 

documents do not discuss which control technologies these facilities employ to comply 

with their CO permit limits.52 

The CO BACT determination contained in the PSD Application proposes 

CO limits and states that the facility would use an oxidation catalyst to comply with the 

proposed limits. The CO BACT analyses contained in the PSD Application does not 

explain how it was determined that the use of an oxidation catalyst would constitute 

BACT and why other control technologies or combinations of control technologies 

would not be feasible.53 This “analysis” is insufficient to determine that the proposed 

permit limits are indeed BACT for CO emissions from the CTGs. As discussed in the 

following comment, the Agency erred in determining BACT for the CTGs. 

 

49 Statement of Basis, Section 7.1.2 Carbon Monoxide, p. 14. 

50 City of Victorville, Application for Prevention of Significant Deterioration Permit for Victorville 2 

Hybrid Power Project, April 2007, Docket No. EPA-R09-OAR-2008-0406-0001, p. 4-4. 

51 Ibid. 

52 Ibid and Appendix B to Application, Control Technology Listings, Docket No. EPA-R09-OAR-2008-

0406-0003, Table B-2. 

53 Ibid. 
Pless Comments on Victorville II proposed PSD Permit 

July 7, 2008 

18 

IV.C.2 Lower CO Limits Have Been Permitted Under All Firing Conditions 

The Draft PSD Permit limits CO emissions from the CTGs to 2.0 ppm when the 

duct burners are not in use and to 3.0 ppm when the duct burners are firing based on 

the use of an oxidation catalyst and averaged over one hour.54 

A number of similar combined-cycle projects that incorporate duct firing have 

been permitted at 2.0 ppm with no CO limit adjustment or a lower CO limit when duct 

firing. (See attached Table A-2 for a partial list of these Projects.) In fact, the Applicant’s 

summary of BACT determinations obtained from the EPA’s RBLC database shows 

11 such determinations.55 The lowest CO limits were permitted for Kleen Energy 

Systems, CT, whose two Siemens SGT6-5000 F turbines were permitted at 0.9 ppm 

CO with the duct burners off and at 1.7 ppm CO when firing the 445 MMBtu/hr duct 

burners. 56 The Applicant did not mention the permit limits for Kleen Energy Systems. 

CPV Warren, VA, was permitted with two of either GE7FA, GE207FA , or Siemens 

STG6-5000F turbines at 1.8 ppm CO with the duct burners off and at 2.5 ppm CO with 

the duct burners firing. Based on the Applicant’s RBLC summary table, ten power 

plants in Arizona, California, Georgia, Michigan, Oregon, and Washington have been 

permitted at 2.0 ppm CO with no CO limit adjustment for the duct burners. These 

include COB Energy Facility, OR, Duke Energy Arlington Valley II, AZ, Vernon City’s 

Malburg Generating Station, CA, Magnolia Power Project, CA, and McIntosh Combined 

Cycle Facility, GA. Several other plants that had been under review or were permitted 

at 2.0 ppm CO without duct burner adjustment have been cancelled. In addition, the 

BP West Coast Products Cherry Point Cogeneration Project, WA, was also permitted at 

2.0 ppm under all firing conditions. Several power plants have demonstrated 

compliance with these low permitted limits as discussed in Comment IV.C.3. 

The Applicant’s CO BACT determination for the CTGs merely states that duct 

burners would emit additional CO, which will increase the uncontrolled emission levels 

entering the oxidation catalyst but failed to reasonably explain why the Project with 

similar turbines can not comply with these lower limits.57 The Statement of Basis, while 

recognizing that several facilities have been permitted with a lower CO limit of 2.0 ppm 

that applies at all times (including when the duct burners are firing), rationalizes the 

proposed higher CO limit for the Project of 3.0 ppm when the duct burners are firing by 

 

54 Proposed PSD Permit, Condition IX.B and IX.C.1, pp. 4-5. 

55 City of Victorville, Application for Prevention of Significant Deterioration Permit for Victorville 2 

Hybrid Power Project, April 2007, Appendix B, Docket No. EPA-R09-OAR-2008-0406-0003, Table B-2. 

56 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, RACT/BACT/LAER Clearinghouse (RBLC), 15.210 Natural 

Gas Fired, Combined-Cycle and Cogeneration (>25 MW). 

57 City of Victorville, Application for Prevention of Significant Deterioration Permit for Victorville 2 

Hybrid Power Project, April 2007, Appendix B, Docket No. EPA-R09-OAR-2008-0406-0003, Section 

4.1.2.2. Top-down Ranking of Achievable Control Levels. 
Pless Comments on Victorville II proposed PSD Permit 

July 7, 2008 

19 

stating that “the combination of emission rates proposed by the applicant falls within 

the stricter range of emission rates acceptable as BACT for CO.”58 There is no 

justification for a higher CO limit while duct firing. Section 169(3) of the Clean Air Act 

defines BACT as “an emission limitation based on the maximum degree of reduction ... 

achievable for such source,” 59 not a “range of emission rates” as applied by the Agency. 

IV.C.3 Lower CO Emissions Have Been Demonstrated in Practice 

Finally, basing BACT limits on previously permitted limits is a self-fulfilling 

prophecy that contravenes the technology-forcing nature of BACT. A BACT limit must 

represent the lowest limit “achievable” for the source—not the lowest limit previously 

achieved by sources in the past.60 This forward-looking emphasis is the “most important” 

mechanism promoting the Clean Air Act’s “philosophy of encouragement of technology 

development.”61 The BACT standard is intended to require use of “the latest 

technological developments [in pollution control] as a requirement in granting the 

permit,” so as to “lead to rapid adoption of improvements in technology as new sources 

are built,” rather than “the stagnation that occurs when everyone works against a single 

national standard for new sources.”62 

The CO BACT determination relies on emission levels that have been permitted 

in the past or demonstrated in the past at other sources. The record contains no 

evidence that an analysis was conducted to determine emission levels that are 

“achievable” with the selected BACT technology, as opposed to achieved. The 

Applicant and the EPA should have collected and evaluated test data reported to the 

EPA under various regulatory programs, discussed technology performance and 

guarantees with vendors, and then made an engineering judgment based on physical 

and chemical principles using this data as to what limits are “achievable” for 

Victorville II to fulfill the technology forcing nature of BACT. The limits in permits for 

plants built in the past or permitted in the past serve only as the starting point for the 

BACT analysis of what is achievable for a plant to be built in the future. Those limits 

cannot also be the end of the BACT analysis; limits achieved in the past are a floor, not 

the ceiling for the BACT determination of what is “achievable” for a new source. 

For example, CO concentrations of 0.046 and 0.043 ppm at 15% oxygen were 

measured on the two GE Frame 7FA turbines at the Los Medanos Energy Center, at full 

 

58 Statement of Basis, p. 14. 

59 See also 40 CFR 52.21(b)(12), emphasis added. 

60 40 CFR 52.21 (b)(12); emphasis added. 

61 S. Rep. No. 95-127 at 18; see also Alabama Power v. Costle, 636 F.2d 323, 372 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (noting that 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration Program is intended to be “technology forcing”). 

62 S. Rep. No. 95-127 at 18. 
Pless Comments on Victorville II proposed PSD Permit 

July 7, 2008 

20 

load with duct burners on, during October 2001 compliance testing.63

CO concentrations of 0.12 and 0.04 ppm were measured on the two SW 501FD turbines 

at the Sutter Power Project, at full load with duct burners on and power augmentation 

operational, during June 2001 compliance testing.64 Numerous such source tests 

demonstrate that much lower CO limits are routinely achieved at other similar facilities. 

The Agency has access to this data and should collect and analyze it to make a fresh 

CO BACT determination that complies with the statutory and regulatory definition of 

BACT which require an emission limit based on the maximum degree of reduction that 

is achievable. 

IV.D The PM and PM10 (as a Surrogate for PM2.5) BACT Determination for 

CTGs Is Flawed 

The Statement of Basis states without further discussion that no add-on 

particulate emission controls have been demonstrated in practice for this type of source 

and that BACT for PM and PM2.5 emissions from Victorville II’s two General Electric 

(“GE”) 7FA CTGs would be the use of natural gas with a sulfur content of 0.2 grains per 

100 dry standard cubic feet (“g/100 dscf”) or less to limit sulfate particulate emissions.65 

IV.D.1 The PM and PM2.5 BACT Determinations Do Not Follow the Top-down 

Procedure Established as Standard for BACT Analyses 

The Agency’s one-paragraph BACT analysis for PM and PM2.5 is presumably 

based on the Applicant’s equally short BACT analysis contained in a supplement to the 

PSD Application for PM2.5.66 The Applicant’s PM and PM2.5 BACT determinations also 

do not follow the established five-step top-down BACT procedure. (The additional 

supplement to the PSD Application for PM did not contain a BACT analysis but rather 

relied on the PM2.5 supplement due to the fact that PM emissions are assumed to be 

equal to the PM10/PM2.5 emissions.67) The Statement of Basis and the Applicant’s 

PM2.5 BACT analysis then conclude that BACT for both PM and PM10 (as a surrogate 

 

63 The Avogadro Group, Los Medanos Energy Center Report for Initial Emission Compliance Tests, 

January 22, 2002; attached as Exhibit 6. 

64 The Avogadro Group, Revised Report for Startup Emission Compliance Tests and CEMS Part 60 and 

Part 75 RATA, Sutter Power Project, Yuba City, California, January 2002; attached as Exhibit 7. 

65 Statement of Basis, pp. 14-15. 

66 Sara Head, ENSR, Letter to Ed Pike, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, San Francisco, CA, Subject: 

Supplement to Application for Prevention of Significant Deterioration Permit for Victorville 2 Hybrid 

Power Project (VV2), June 25, 2007; Docket No. EPA-R09-OAR-2008-0406-0009. 

67 Thomas Barnett, Inland Energy, Inc., Letter to Anita Lee, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, San 

Francisco, CA, Subject: Supplement to Application for Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) 

Permit for Victorville 2 Hybrid Power Project, January 28, 2008; Docket No. EPA-R09-OAR-2008-0406-

0010. 
Pless Comments on Victorville II proposed PSD Permit 

July 7, 2008 

21 

for PM2.5) emissions from the CTGs is 12.0 pounds per hour (“lb/hour”) without the 

duct burner firing and 18.0 lb/hour with the duct burner firing.68,69 There is no support 

in the docket for this conclusion as neither the Statement of Basis nor the Applicant’s 

documents contain any discussion of achievable PM10 and PM2.5 emission levels, 

permitted PM and PM10 emission limits at similar facilities, or results of source tests. 

IV.D.2 Lower PM10 Emissions Limits Have Been Permitted 

A number of natural gas-fired power plants with substantially similar F-class 

turbines have been permitted by the EPA and licensed by the California Energy 

Commission (“CEC”) with considerably lower PM10 emissions limits for the CTGs and 

associated duct burners than those proposed in the proposed PSD Permit for Victorville 

II. In California, these facilities include the Blythe Energy Project Phase II, the 

Cosumnes Power Plant Phase I, the Los Medanos Energy Facility, the Russell City 

Energy Center, the Moss Landing Power Plant Project, the Metcalf Energy Center, the 

Mountainview Power Plant Project, and the Inland Empire Energy Center. Turbine and 

duct burner characteristics and permit limits for these facilities are summarized in 

attached Table A-1 and some facilities are discussed in more detail below. 

Particularly noteworthy is the Blythe Energy Project Phase II, which employs 

Siemens Westinghouse F-class turbines. This facility was licensed by the CEC in 2005 

and permitted by the EPA in 2007 with an emission limit of 6.0 lb/hour of PM10 

emissions per turbine with and without firing the duct burners and using natural gas 

with more than twice as much sulfur content as proposed for Victorville II.70,71,72 The 

CEC requires testing of the permitted PM10 limits based on EPA Methods 5 and 20273, 

the same testing methods as proposed for Victorville II.74 On a unit energy-basis, the 

 

68 Statement of Basis, pp. 14-15. 

69 Thomas Barnett, Inland Energy, Inc., Letter to Anita Lee, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, San 

Francisco, CA, Subject: Supplement to Application for Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) 

Permit for Victorville 2 Hybrid Power Project, January 28, 2008; Docket No. EPA-R09-OAR-2008-0406-

0010. 

70 California Energy Commission, Blythe Energy Project Phase II, Application for Certification 

(02-AFC-1), Commission Decision, CEC-800-2005-005-CMF, December 2005, Condition AQ-4.e, p. 35; 

cited pages attached as Exhibit 8. 

71 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, Caithness Blythe II, L.L.C. (Blythe II), Authority to 

Construct, Issued Pursuant to Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Requirements at 40 CFR 

§52.21, PSD Permit Number SE 02-01, April 25, 2007, Condition D, p. 6; cited page attached as Exhibit 9. 

72 Construction of the facility is currently on hold. See California Energy Commission, Energy Facility 

Status, Projects Since 1997, Updated: 6/20/2008; http://energy.ca.gov/sitingcases/all_projects.html; 

attached as Exhibit 10. 

73 The CEC additionally permits the use of CARB Method 5; see Exhibit 2, Condition AQ-4.e, p. 35. 

74 See Exhibit 2, Condition AQ-14.e, p. 38. 
Pless Comments on Victorville II proposed PSD Permit 

July 7, 2008 

22 

Blythe Energy Plant is permitted to emit 0.0034 lb/MMBtu of PM10 with the duct 

burners off and 0.0031 lb/MMBtu with the duct burners firing, less than half of the 

PM10 emissions the EPA proposes for Victorville II, i.e. 0.0069 lb/MMBtu with the duct 

burners on and 0.0083 lb/MMBtu with the duct burners firing, and determined with the 

same test methods.75 The EPA should explain, based on physical and chemical 

properties of the exhaust gases, why these lower emission levels cannot be achieved at 

Victorville II. 

IV.D.3 Lower PM10 Emissions Have Been Demonstrated in Practice 

The Cosumnes Power Plant Phase I, which employs two GE 7FA turbines with 

no duct burners, was licensed by the CEC in 2003 with an emissions limit of 9.0 lb/hr 

PM10 per turbine based on an emission factor of 0.00483 lb/MMbtu.76 The Cosumnes 

Power Plant Phase I is operational and compliance with this emission limit has been 

demonstrated. The most recent stack tests measured average PM10 emission rates of 

4.0 and 3.3 lb/hr from the two turbines, respectively, with EPA Methods 201A and 202.

On a unit energy-basis, average PM10 emissions were determined to be 0.00235 and 

0.00195 lb/MMBtu, respectively, less than a third of the proposed PM10 emissions for 

Victorville II.77 

The Los Medanos Energy Center, which employs two GE S207FA turbines, was 

initially licensed with PM10 emission limits of 16.3 lb/hr per turbine train with and 

without duct burner operation. In 2006, the project owner requested lowering the PM10 

permit limits to 9.0 lb/hr based on stack tests repeatedly demonstrating PM10 

emissions considerably below 9.0 lb/hr. As a result, the CEC licensed revised turbine 

PM10 emission limits of 9.0 lb/hr or 0.0040 lb/MMBtu per turbine including when the 

330 MMBtu/hr duct burner is firing.78

 

75 Blythe II: (6.0 lb/hr) / (1,776 MMBtu/hr turbine) = 0.0034 lb/MMBtu

(6.0 lb/hr) / (1,776 MMBtu/hr turbine + 132 MMBtu/hr duct burner) = 0.0031 lb/MMBtu; 

Victorville II: (12.0 lb/hr) / (1,736.4 MMBtu/hr turbine) = 0.0069 lb/MMBtu

(18.0 lb/hr) / (1,736.4 MMBtu/hr turbine + 424.3 MMBtu duct burner) = 0.0083 lb/MMBtu. 

76 California Energy Commission, Cosumnes Power Plant Project, Sacramento County, Application for 

Certification (01-AFC-19), Commission Decision, P800-03-013, September 2003, Condition AQ-17, 

pp. 27-28; cited pages attached as Exhibit 11. 

77 The Avogadro Group, LLC, Source Test Report, 2007 Emission Compliance Tests, SFA Cosumnes 

Power Plant, Herald, California, March 16, 2007, pp. 4 and 11; document without appendices attached as 

Exhibit 12. 

78 California Energy Commission, In the Matter of: Los Medanos Energy Center, Order No. 07-0523-4, 

Order Approving a Petition to Lower the Annual PM10 Emissions Limit for the Facility, Docket 

No. 98-AFC-1C; attached as Exhibit 13. 
Pless Comments on Victorville II proposed PSD Permit 

July 7, 2008 

23 

These examples and others given in Table A-1 for similar turbines including 

other GE Frame 7FA turbines demonstrate that the proposed PM10 (as a surrogate for 

PM2.5) limits of 12.0 lb/hr without and 18.0 lb/hr with duct burners firing do not 

constitute BACT for the CTGs. As discussed previously for the CO BACT 

determination, the Applicant and the EPA should have collected and evaluated test 

data reported to the EPA under various regulatory programs, discussed technology 

performance and guarantees with vendors, and then made an engineering judgment 

based on physical and chemical principles using this data as to what limits are 

“achievable” for Victorville II to fulfill the technology-forcing nature of BACT. 

IV.D.4 Demonstrated In Practice Is the Wrong Standard for Emission Control 

Technologies 

The Statement of Basis states without further discussion that no add-on 

particulate emission controls have been demonstrated in practice. Demonstrated in 

practice is the LAER standard and does not apply to a BACT analysis. A BACT 

technology need only be achievable. 

The NSR Manual sets out a process to determine the technical feasibility of a 

control technology that has not been installed and operated successfully on the type of 

source under review. NSR Manual, Sec. IV.B. If a technology is “available” and 

“applicable” it qualifies as a BACT technology that must be included in Step 2 of the top 

down process. A technology is available if it can be obtained by the applicant through 

commercial channels or is otherwise available within the common sense meaning of the 

term. An available technology is “applicable” if it can reasonably be installed and 

operated on the source type under consideration. A technology that is available and 

applicable is technically feasible. 

There are a number of technologies that meet these criteria that should have been 

evaluated and required as BACT for PM10/PM2.5. These include fabric filter 

baghouses, Pall filters, wet electrostatic precipitators (“Wet ESP” or “WESP”), 79

 

79 Candidate Stationary and Area Control Measures, Chicago PM2.5 Workshop, June 21, 2007, Tim Smith, 

USEPA at slide 15 (recognizing Wet ESP’s as “innovative PM2.5 controls”); available at

http://earth1.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/pm/presents/control_measures_stationary_and_area-tim_smith.ppt; 

attached as Exhibit 4. 

See also Evaluation of Potential PM2.5 Reductions by Improving Performance of Control Devices: 

Conclusions and Recommendations, Prepared for: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency by E.H. Pechan 

& Associates, Inc., EPA Contract No. 68-D-00-265 at 23 (September 30, 2005) (“Pechan Report”) available at 

http://www.epa.gov/pm/measures/pm25_recommend_2007.pdf (describing Wet ESP as an 

“innovative control system” that “yield[s] higher PM2.5 emissions reductions than the methods identified 

to improve existing control device performance”), attached as Exhibit 15; and 

CIBO Industrial Emissions Control Technology II Conference, August 2 - 4, 2004 Portland, Maine at 6 

(explaining that Wet ESP’s are an effective control technology for PM2.5: “There are no moving parts in a 
Pless Comments on Victorville II proposed PSD Permit 

July 7, 2008 

24 

advanced hybrid particulate collectors, 80 removal of sulfur from the natural gas feed, 

and use of an ammonia slip cleanup catalyst. Wet electrostatic precipitators, for 

example, are widely used in many industries and many more are considering the WESP 

as the maximum achievable control technology (MACT).” 

The Completeness Determination must be revoked and the BACT analysis for 

PM2.5 redone to cure this serious deficiency. 

IV.D.5 Proposed Test Methods to Determine Compliance Require Lowering the PM 

and PM10 (as a Surrogate for PM2.5) BACT Limits 

The proposed PSD Permit requires determination of compliance with the PM 

and PM10 (as a surrogate for PM2.5) permit limits by measuring PM and PM10 

emissions using EPA’s Reference Methods 5 and 202. In lieu of Method 202, the 

proposed PSD Permit allows the use of EPA Conditional Test Methods for particulate 

matter, i.e. CTM-039 or CTM-040.81 There are a number of problems with allowing the 

Applicant to choose from these test methods. 

First, EPA Conditional Test Method CTM-040 has been superseded by OTM27 on 

May 8, 2008.82,83 Thus, the proposed PSD Permit should be revised to refer to OTM27 

and its successors, rather than CTM-040. 

Second, the use of these test methods results in considerably different PM10 

measurements for the same source. EPA Method 5 for filterable particulate matter and 

Method 202 for condensable particulate matter are known to overestimate PM10 

emissions from gas turbines and other fired sources.84,85 Method 5 measures total 

 

wet ESP. The [fine] particles never really reach the electrode and are constantly washed away by the 

water flow);”available at http://www.cibo.org/emissions/2004/summary.pdf; attached as Exhibit 16. 

80 Since its original development, the name of this technology has been changed to “Advanced 

HybridTM.” The name was trademarked by W.L. Gore and Associates, Inc. See “Demonstration of a FullScale Retrofit of the Advanced Hybrid Particulate Collector Technology,” U.S. Department of Energy 

(February 2007); available at

http://204.154.137.14/technologies/coalpower/cctc/PPII/bibliography/demonstration/environmental

/otter/PPA_Otter%20Tail_PPA_Final%20for%20Posting.pdf, attached as Exhibit 17. 

81 Proposed PSD Permit, p. 10. 

82 See U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Conditional Test Methods, CTM-040: “Draft Method for 

Determination of PM10/PM2.5 has been superseded by OTM027”; 

http://www.epa.gov/ttnemc01/ctm.html. 

83 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Determining PM10 and PM2.5 Emissions from Stationary 

Sources (Constant Sampling Rate Procedure), May 8, 2008. 

84 See http://www.epa.gov/ttn/emc/methods/method202.html. 
Pless Comments on Victorville II proposed PSD Permit 

July 7, 2008 

25 

particulate matter, rather than PM10, thus overestimating actual PM10 emissions. 

Method 202 overestimates condensable PM10 due to the formation of artifacts in the 

wet impinger train, such as the oxidation of SO2 to SO3. The artifact problems with 

Method 202 can be minimized by selecting options listed in the method, such as 

nitrogen purge, which is required to determine compliance for Victorville II.86,87,88 To 

address these artifact problems, the U.S. EPA has developed alternative test method 

CTM-039 for total PM10, which employs a dilution tunnel method and measures both 

total PM10 and PM2.5, and is currently developing an alternate for Method 202.89 

Most stack tests at other facilities in the past used EPA Method 5 and 202 without 

the nitrogen purge.90 Thus, the resulting measured emissions are artificially high and 

BACT determinations made using this data report emission limits that are artificially 

high. If these facilities were stack-tested with EPA Method 202 using a nitrogen purge 

or with CTM-039, lower PM10 emissions rates would be measured. These lower PM10 

emissions should result in lower BACT emission limits. Therefore, the proposed PSD 

Permit should have established separate permit limits for PM10 depending on the test 

method used to determine compliance. 

 In addition to the comments on the proposed PM10 BACT limits above, the 

Agency must revise its BACT determination to address the lower emission rates that 

would be achieved when using Method 5 with nitrogen purge or CTM-039. 

IV.E BACT Determinations for Auxiliary Boiler, Auxiliary, Heater, Emergency 

Engine, and Firewater Pump Are Flawed 

Most of the Applicant’s analyses for the auxiliary boiler, the heat transfer fluid 

(“HTF”) heater, the emergency diesel engine, and the firewater pump engine suffer 

from the same problems as the CO and PM and PM10 BACT analyses for the turbines, 

i.e. the failure to follow a top-down BACT procedure, resulting in failure to select 

proper BACT levels. With the exception of the CO BACT determination for the auxiliary 

 85 See, for example, G.C. England, Development of Fine Particulate Emission Factors and Speciation 

Profiles for Oil and Gas-fired Combustion Systems, Technical Memorandum: Conceptual Model of 

Sources of Variability in Combustion Turbine PM10 Emissions Data, March, 2004; attached as Exhibit 18. 

86 See http://www.epa.gov/ttn/emc/methods/method202.html. 

87 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Conditional Test Method (CTM) 039, Measurement of PM2.5 

and PM10 Emissions by Dilution Sampling, (Constant Sampling Rate Procedures), CTM-039 (04_Rev 2), 

July 2004. 

88 Proposed PSD Permit, Condition H.d.iv.a., p. 9. 

89 See http://www.epa.gov/ttn/emc/methods/method202.html 

90 See attached Table A-1 and Exhibit 6 and Exhibit 13. 
Pless Comments on Victorville II proposed PSD Permit 

July 7, 2008 

26 

boiler and auxiliary heater, the Agency’s and the Applicant’s “BACT analyses” consist 

of one paragraph per unit with no further support for the conclusions in the docket. 

V. The Proposed PSD Permit Fails to Include a Permit Limit for 

Ammonia Slip 

The Statement of Basis states that excess ammonia emissions from the CTGs’ 

selective catalytic reduction (“SCR”) system, the so-called ammonia slip, would be 

limited to 5 ppmvd.91 Yet the proposed PSD Permit does not contain any restrictions on 

the ammonia slip from the SCR. Because ammonia is a precursor to PM2.5 particulate 

matter emissions, the proposed PSD Permit should be revised to provide for monitoring 

and recordkeeping of the ammonia slip. 

VI. The Proposed PSD Permit Limits Are Not Enforceable 

The proposed permit limits must be enforceable as a practical matter to qualify 

as legitimate restrictions on emissions. Practical enforceability means the source and/or 

enforcement authority must be able to show continual compliance (or noncompliance) 

with each limitation or requirement. See, U.S. v. Louisiana-Pacific Corp. 682 F.Supp. 

1122, Civil Action No. 86-A-1880 (D. Colorado, March 22, 1988). The proposed 

PM/PM10 limits are not practically enforceable because the proposed PSD Permit 

contains inadequate monitoring requirements. 

The U.S. EPA has issued a substantial amount of guidance on effectively limiting 

a source’s potential to emit through enforceable permit conditions. Practical 

enforceability means the source must be able to show continuous compliance with each 

limitation or requirement.92 Adequate testing, monitoring, and record-keeping must be 

included in the permit.93 The proposed permit conditions in the proposed PSD Permit 

for Victorville II fall short of assuring that the proposed limits are enforceable as a 

practical matter.94 

 The U.S. EPA’s New Source Review Manual (“NSR Manual”) includes a chapter 

on “Effective Permit Writing.” This chapter explains that emission and operational 

limits “must be clearly expressed, easily measurable, and allow no subjectivity... Such 

 

91 Statement of Basis, p. 14. 

92 See, e.g., “Guidance on Limiting Potential to Emit in New Source Permitting,” from Terrell F. Hunt, 

Associate Enforcement Counsel, OECA, and John Seitz, Director, OAQPS, to EPA Regional Offices, 

June 13, 1989; attached as Exhibit 14. 

93 NSR Manual, pp. A.5-A.6; see Exhibit 1. 

94 In these comments, the terms “enforceable” and “enforceable as a practical matter” shall be used 

interchangeably. 
Pless Comments on Victorville II proposed PSD Permit 

July 7, 2008 

27 

limits should be of a short term nature, continuous and enforceable.”95 Several 

conditions contained in the Permit violate these characteristics. 

 An appendix to the NSR Manual further clarifies the meaning of enforceability. It 

notes: 

Compliance with any limitation must be able to be established at any given time. 

When drafting permit limitations, the writer must always ensure that restrictions 

are written in such a manner that an inspector could verify instantly whether the 

source is or was complying with the permit conditions. Therefore, short-term 

averaging times on limitations are essential. 

Emission limits should reflect operation of the control equipment, be short-term, 

and, where feasible, the permit should require a continuous emissions monitor. 

Blanket emissions limits alone (e.g., tons/yr, lb/hr) are virtually impossible to 

verify or enforce, and are therefore not enforceable as a practical matter. 

When permits contain production or operational limits, they must also have 

requirements that allow a permitting agency to verify a source’s compliance with 

its limits. These additional conditions dictate enforceability and usually take the 

form of recordkeeping requirements.96

As explained below, the proposed PSD Permit is not enforceable because it fails 

to specify monitoring requirements and does not contain adequate monitoring or 

recordkeeping to assure continuous compliance. Some of the limits are also not 

enforceable because they are based on long averaging periods and/or do not include 

both an instantaneous limit and an emissions cap. 

VI.A Testing for PM and PM10 Emission Limits for CTGs Is Not Adequate to 

Assure Continuous Compliance 

The proposed PSD Permit limits PM and PM10 (as a surrogate for PM2.5) 

emissions from the CTGs to 12.0 lb/hr when the duct burners are off and 18.0 lb/hr 

when the duct burners are fired based on a 12-month rolling average to be verified with 

annual performance testing (stack test) and monthly natural gas fuel testing.97 This 

condition is not adequate to ensure continual compliance with the permit limits. 

According to the New Source Review Workshop Manual, “BACT emission limits or 

conditions must be met on a continual basis at all levels of operation (e.g., limits written 

 

95 NSR Manual, p. H.5; see Exhibit 1. 

96 Ibid, pp. c.3–c.5. 

97 Proposed PSD Permit, Conditions IX.C.1, IX.H.1.a.i, and IX.H.1.d.iv. 
Pless Comments on Victorville II proposed PSD Permit 

July 7, 2008 

28 

in pounds/MMBtu or percent reduction achieved), demonstrate protection of short 

term ambient standards (limits written in pounds/hour) and be enforceable as a 

practical matter (contain appropriate averaging times, compliance verification 

procedures and recordkeeping requirements).”98 

A stack test normally lasts only a few hours (3 to 6 hours) and is conducted 

under ideal, prearranged conditions. Staged annual or other periodic testing is not 

indicative of emissions during routine operation or startups and shutdowns on the 

other 364 days of the year, or 8,750-plus hours. One 3-hour test per year over a 50-year 

facility life at 85% capacity amounts to testing only about 0.04% of the operating hours. 

This is a long way from demonstrating continuous compliance. 

Further, annual stack testing does not capture spikes caused by normal process 

operations. It is well known that “[m]anual stack tests are generally performed under 

optimum operating conditions, and as such, do not reflect the full-time emission 

conditions from a source.”99 A widely-used handbook on Continuous Emissions 

Monitoring (“CEMs”) notes, with respect to PM10 source tests, that: “Due to the 

planning and preparations necessary for these manual methods, the source is usually 

notified prior to the actual testing. This lead time allows the source to optimize both 

operations and control equipment performance in order to pass the tests.”100 

As discussed, an annual stack test does not provide any method to assure that 

the BACT limits for PM and PM10 are met on a “continual basis.” The Permit should be 

revised to include an instantaneous permit limit in (in, for example, lb/MMBtu) and 

installation of a CEMS for PM and PM10 in the stack to address those periods when 

direct stack testing is not conducted. Annual and quarterly stack testing of the CEMS 

should be performed to demonstrate its performance. 

VI.B No Recordkeeping for Hours of Operation for Duct Burners 

The proposed PSD Permit restricts the combined hours of operation for both duct 

burners to 2,000 hours per year per 12-month rolling average in Condition C.2.101 Yet, 

the proposed PSD Permit fails to require any recordkeeping to ensure that the 

2,000-hour limit for operation of both duct burners is not exceeded. The Proposed 

Permit should be revised to include a requirement for recordkeeping for operations of 

the two duct burners to be submitted annually to the EPA. 

 

98 NSR Manual, p. B.56; see Exhibit 1. 

99 40 Fed. Reg. 46,241 (Oct. 6, 1975). 

100 James A. Jahnke, Continuous Emission Monitoring, 2nd Ed., John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 2000, 

at p. 241. 

101 Proposed PSD Permit, p. 5. 
Pless Comments on Victorville II proposed PSD Permit 

July 7, 2008 

29 

VI.C Insufficient Monitoring for Cooling Tower Emissions 

The proposed PSD Permit limits cooling tower PM emissions to 1.6 lb/hr based 

on a 0.0005% drift rate with a maximum circulation rate of 130,000 gallons per minute 

and a maximum total dissolved solids (“TDS”) content of 5,000 ppm.102 The proposed 

PSD Permit requires an annual source test for cooling tower PM emissions.103 To 

demonstrate continual compliance with the PM permit limit, the proposed PSD Permit 

requires calculation of the mass emissions rate based on the TDS content determined by 

weekly testing of the blow-down water quality and the permitted circulation rate.104

The proposed PSD Permit further requires that a maintenance procedure be established 

that states how often and which procedures will be used to ensure the integrity of the 

drift eliminators to guarantee that TDS limits are not exceeded and to ensure 

compliance with recirculation rates.105 These requirements are insufficient to ensure 

continuous compliance with the proposed PM permit limit. 

First, the Agency must layout the proposed maintenance procedure for 

establishing the integrity of the drift eliminators in a plan subject to public review as 

part of the permitting process and must require recordkeeping to assure that the 

procedure is followed. To ensure continuous compliance with the proposed PM permit 

limit of 1.6 lb/hr, it is essential to continuously monitor the cooling tower circulation 

rate and TDS in the circulating water and to require periodic testing of PM emissions in 

the cooling tower drift rate. 

VI.D No Restrictions on Hours of Operation and No Compliance Testing for 

Heater, Boiler, Emergency Use Engine, or Fire Water Pump 

The proposed PSD Permit requires installation and maintenance of an 

operational non-resettable totalizing mass or volumetric flow meter in each fuel line for 

the heater (Unit D5) and the boiler (Unit D6). In addition, the proposed PSD Permit 

requires installation and maintenance of an operational non-resettable elapsed time 

meter for the heater, the boiler, the emergency use engine (Unit D7), and the firewater 

pump (Unit D8).106 The proposed PSD Permit fails to restrict the operating hours for 

any of these units, thus rendering installation of the elapsed time meters meaningless. 

 

102 Proposed PSD Permit, Condition IX.F, p. 7. 

103 Proposed PSD Permit, Condition, IX.H.1.v. 

104 Proposed PSD Permit, Condition IX.H.2.a through IX.H.2.c. 

105 Proposed PSD Permit, Condition IX.H.2.d. 

106 Proposed PSD Permit, p. 12. 
Pless Comments on Victorville II proposed PSD Permit 

July 7, 2008 

30 

Emission estimates for the auxiliary boiler are based on maximum operation of 

500 hours per year.107 Emission estimates for the auxiliary heater are based on 

maximum operation of 1,000 hours per year.108 Emission estimates for the emergency 

use engine and the fire water pump are based on maximum operation of 50 hours per 

year.109 These maximum hours of operation must be written into a permit condition to 

ensure that actual annual emissions from the Project do not exceed permitted annual 

emissions. 

Beyond requiring installation of the two meters, the Proposed PSD contains no 

monitoring or source testing requirements for any of these four emissions units. 

Installation of fuel and elapsed time meters alone is insufficient to ensure that emissions 

from these units would not exceed the proposed BACT limits. The proposed PSD 

Permit should be revised to contain a permit condition requiring at least an initial and 

annual source test for the heater, boiler, emergency use engine, and the firewater pump. 

 

107 City of Victorville, Application for Prevention of Significant Deterioration Permit for Victorville 2 

Hybrid Power Project, April 2007, Appendix C, Docket No. EPA-R09-OAR-2008-0406-0004, Table C-5 

“Emissions from Natural Gas Fired Auxiliary Boiler.” 

108 City of Victorville, Application for Prevention of Significant Deterioration Permit for Victorville 2 

Hybrid Power Project, April 2007, Appendix C, Docket No. EPA-R09-OAR-2008-0406-0004, Table C-6 

“Emissions from Natural Gas Fired HTF Heater.” 

109 City of Victorville, Application for Prevention of Significant Deterioration Permit for Victorville 2 

Hybrid Power Project, April 2007, Appendix C, Docket No. EPA-R09-OAR-2008-0406-0004, Table C-7 

“Emissions from Emergency Diesel Generator” and Table C-8 ”Emissions from Firewater Pump Diesel 

Engine.” 
Table A-1: Permitted PM and PM10 Emissions Rates for Natural Gas-Fired Combined-Cycle Power Plants with 

Operator/ Power Plant 

Air District/ State 

Turbine Size/Fuel Input 

Turbine Type 

Duct 

Burners 

PM/PM10 

Emissions Limits1

Compliance Test Methods 

Na

Gas 

(MW) (MMBtu/hr) (MMBtu/hr) 

(per turbine without/ 

with duct burner) 

* calculated 

Co

(gr/1

Caithness/ Blythe IIa

MDAQMD/ CA 

2 x 170 MW 2 x 1,776 MMBtu/hr 

Siemens Westinghouse F V84.3A 2 x 132 

6/6 lb/hr 

0.0034/0.0031 lb/MMBtu* 

EPA 5 and EPA 202 or ARB 5 

Calpine/ Russell Cityb

BAAQMD/ CA 

2 x 200 MW 2 x 1,979.4 MMBtu/hr 

Siemens Westinghouse 501F 2 x 200 

8.64/11.64 lb/hr 

0.0042/0.0052 lb/MMBtu* 

District-approved methods or dilution method 0

Calpine/ Los Medanosc 

BAAQMD/ CA 2 x 2,012 MMBtu/hr GE S207FA 2 x 3334 

9/95 lb/hr 

0.0045/0.0038 lb/MMBtu* 

District-approved methods or dilution method 

SMUD FA/ Cosumnes Id

SMAQMD/ CA 

2 x 170 MW 2 x 1,865 MMBtu/hr GE 7241FA none 

9/- lb/hr 

0.0048/- lb/MMBtu* 

District-approved methods 0

Duke Energy/ Moss Landinge 

MBUAPCD/ CA 

4 x 172 MW 4 x 1,872 MMBtu/hr GE PG7241FA none 

9-/ lb/hr 

0.0048/- lb/MMBtu* 

District-approved methods 

Calpine/ Metcalff 

BAAQMD/ CA 2 x 185 MW 

Siemens Westinghouse 501F 2 x 200 

9/12 lb/hr 

0.0049/0.0059 lb/MMBtu* 

District-approved methods or dilution method 

SCE/ Mountainview 3 and 4g 

SCAQMD/ CA 

4 x 166.7 MW 4 x 1991 MMBtu/hr GE 7FA 4 x 135 

11/11 lb/hr 

0.0055/0.0052 lb/MMBtu* 

District-approved method 0.0

Inland Empire/ Inland Empireh 

SCAQMD/ CA 

2 x 174 MW 2 x 1,813 MMBtu/hr GE PG7251FB 2 x 697 

11/11 lb/hr 

0.0061/0.0044 lb/MMBtu* 

District-approved methods 

City of Victorville/ Victorville IIi 

MDAQMD/ CA 

2 x 154 MW 2 x 1,736.4 MMBtu/hr 

GE 7FA rapid start 2 x 424.3 

12/18 lb/hr 

0.0069/0.0083 lb/MMBtu* 

EPA 5 and EPA 202 or CTM-039 or CTM-040 

a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, Caithness Blythe II, L.L.C. (Blythe II), Authority to Construct, Issued Pursuant to Prevention of Significan

Requirements at 40 CFR §52.21, PSD Permit Number SE 02-01, April 25, 2007; Condition D, p. 6; attached as Exhibit 19; and California Energy Commissio

Application for Certification (02-AFC-1), Commission Decision, CEC-800-2005-005-CMF, December 2005; Condition AQ-4(b)(iii), p. 35; attached as Exhi
b California Energy Commission, Russell City Energy Center, Amendment No. 1 (01-AFC-7C), Alameda County, Final Commission Decision, CEC-800-2007

p. 107; attached as Exhibit 20. 

c California Energy Commission, Pittsburg District Energy Facility [now Los Medanos, Application for Certification (98-AFC-1), Commission Decision, P800

Exhibit 21. 

d California Energy Commission, Cosumnes Power Plant Project, Sacramento County, Application for Certification (01-AFC-19), Commission Decision, P80

as Exhibit 11. 

e California Energy Commission, Moss Landing Power Plant Project, Application for Certification, Commission Decision, P 800-00-008, November 2000, attf California Energy Commission, The Metcalf Energy Center, Application for Certification (99-AFC-3), Santa Clara County, Commission Decision, P800-01-

AQ-20(h), p. 146; attached as Exhibit 23. 

g California Energy Commission, Mountainview Power Project, Application for Certification (00-AFC-2), San Bernardino County, Commission Decision, P80

Condition AQ-14, p. 40; attached as Exhibit 24. 

h California Energy Commission, Inland Empire Energy Center, Application for Certification (01-AFC-17), Riverside County, Commission Decision, Decemb

i U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, Victorville II Hybrid Power Project (SE 07-02), Prevention of Significant Deterioration Permit, Proposed 

1 After initial startup, except during startup and shutdown periods 2 SCR = selective catalytic reduction; DLN = dry-low NOx 3 Status as of June 18, 2008 based on CEC website at http://energy.ca.gov/sitingcases/all_projects.html; see Exhibit 10 

4 Initially permitted with 83 MMBtu/hr duct burners; revised to permit 333 MMBtu/hr duct burners 5 Initially permitted at 16.3/16.3 lb/hr; project owner requested, and the CEC approved in 2007, a revised turbine PM10 emission limit of 9 lb/hr based on st

below 9 lb/hr (with 333 MMBtu/hr duct burners firing) 
Table A-2: Permitted CO Emissions Rates for Natural Gas-Fired Combined-Cycle Power Plants 

Operator/ Power Plant Air District/ 

Turbine Size/Fuel Input Turbine Type 

Duct 

Burners 

CO 

Emissions Limits1 Cont

State (MW) 

(MMBtu/hr) (MMBtu/hr) 

(per turbine without/

with duct burner) 

Kleen Energy Systemsa CT 2 x Siemens SGT6-5000F 2 x 445 0.9/1.7 ppm oxidaCPV Warren/ CPV Warrena VA 2 x 

GE 7FA or GE 207FA or Siemens SGT6-5000F 2 x 1.8/2.5 ppm oxida

SCPPA/ Magnolia Power Projectb

SCAQMD/ CA 1 x 1787 MMBtu/hr GE PG7241FA 1 x 583 2.0/2.0 ppm 

SCR, oxida

Vernon City/ Malburg Generating Stationd

SCAQMD/ CA 2 x 42.2 MW Alstom GTX-100 2 x 2.0/2.0 ppm 

DLN, oxida

BP West Coast Products BP Cherry Pointe WA 

3 x 174 MW 3 x 1,614 MMBtu/hr GE 7FA 3 x 105 2.0/2.0 ppm 

SCR, oxida

City of Victorville Victorville IIf 

MDAQMD/ CA 

2 x 154 MW 2 x 1,736.4 MMBtu/hr 

GE 7FA rapid start 2 x 424.3 2.0/3.0 ppm 

SCR, oxida

a RBLC. b California Energy Commission, Magnolia Power Project, Application for Certification (01-AFC-6), Los Angeles County, City of Burbank, C

Decision, P800-03-003, March 2003, pp. 117 and 123; attached as Exhibit 26. 

c California Energy Commission, Malburg Generating Station Project, Application for Certification 01-AFC-25, City of Vernon, Los Angeles 

Commission Decision, May 2003, P800-03-007, p. 119; attached as Exhibit 27. 

e Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council, BP Cherry Point Cogeneration Project, BP West Coast Products, LLC, Whatcom County, Washin

Approval of Construction and Prevention of Significant Deterioration, No. EFSEC/2002-01, October 10, 2006; attached as Exhibit 28. 

f U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, Victorville II Hybrid Power Project (SE 07-02), Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

Proposed Permit Conditions, June 2008. 

1 After initial startup, except during startup and shutdown periods 2 SCR = selective catalytic reduction; DLN = dry-low NOx 3 Status as of June 18, 2008 based on CEC website at http://energy.ca.gov/sitingcases/all_projects.html